Starting Points:
I wonder if our starting points are different, then we will have different outcomes (truths).
If four people watched a car accident and each of the four people were in different locations—it is possible that all four will have a different story of truth. I saw this…I saw that…I felt this.
Perhaps, this doesn’t matter. Some might say that “anything goes” mentality is ok.
But it seems that if we argue about truth, then there is an answer. In my small pea-sized brain, it seems to make sense to understand that there is a right and wrong, truths and false-truths. We have these same truths and false-truths in (ALL) other realms of life. If I pointed to an oak tree and called it a banana tree you could correct me on my error. Why should it be different for our faith?
I wonder about how important it is to make sure we start in the best, most honest way towards scripture/doctrinal stuff/beliefs (S/D/B).
Up until the last 100 years or so, most of our beliefs and “truths” were easily accepted. Now people want to question everything about the S/D/B. I am not afraid of these discussions, and I look eagerly towards them, because I seek truth out.
But what I am wrestling with, is point of view. I hold this viewpoint, you hold that. But if you were in my shoes and I in yours would we have differences still?
How important is it to start in the right spot?
Maybe the first question is “Where should we start?”
Why should I start with assuming the bible is true or mythical?
Why should I start with assuming Genesis is wrong or right, historically speaking (Didn’t science tell us the planet is flat and the atom was the smallest thing, and that there were 9 planets)?
Why do Modernist have to be wrong in understanding the Bible as truth (historically)?
Why assume that the last 2,000 years of tradition and study from men, who are more educated than most, are wrong? Or right?
Why do we all assume that those of yester year were ignorant and did not have the whole story, but today we do?
Why do we assume our limited view of science disproves the historical accuracy of the bible?
In my limited experience, many of the experts and Phd’s—I have found to be in total ignorance and to full of pride to admit error. By no means all of them, but some.
It makes logical sense to me, that God did have a purpose in all of his words that he gave us. Rather, historical or not…He still wanted to convey a message.
Our job is to honestly seek out and study to try to discover his truth. I think most people would agree with me here.
But…
How do I know where to start? Why start in the realm of higher criticism? Why not start there?
Is it possible that because of our pride that we miss out on drawing closer to God? I seek to honestly find him who has found me.
In my mind, I have formulated my answers to these questions, but I am interested to hear what others have to say.
Can a Higher Critic miss truth because of where he started from? Can a preacher?
I see these questions as foundational to our development as students of Christ. Loving God with all of our minds.
15 Comments
While I think about how to answer these questions, I want to get something off of my chest. I think it is just plain…silly(?)…that many of the scholars who came up with the documentary theory, call certain parts of the Bible myths and stories for camp fires (like my archaeology prof at SBU said about Judges), call their studies "higher criticism." What makes their work "higher" or better than anyone before them? Absolutely nothing. They have just taken approaches to the Scripture that haven't been thought of until them. It really just makes me laugh at them that they have to call themselves "higher critics" because they do "higher criticism." I like the questions and need to think about them and how I want to respond to them.
Short answer (church service is fast-approaching):
We need both. We need the scholars, and we need what I’ve heard called “simple piety.” It’s the BODY of Christ, and no one group has the market cornered. Truth is both definitive and multi-faceted.
The hard part: reaching a synthesis between the two groups. We seem to be more at each others throats at times than encouraging one another as brothers and sisters. this is especially difficult for me because I pitch my tent on the border between the two camps.
And we can draw either comfort or caution from the fact that similar debates have been taking place in the Church for 2000 years.
A lot left unsaid…another time, perhaps.
Casey,
As I have said before, you have asked an excellent set of questions. How do we start approaching the Bible? How do we make sense of it? Just being able to ask those questions is a a good first start. It indicates that one realizes that they don’t have all the answers contained within one’s self.
You ask a very complex question. One’s starting point has everything to do with where they will end up. People who approach the Bible with an atheistic mindset will come to very different conclusions than a person that thinks that the Bible is a revelation from God. However, where one ends up is not entirely governed by their starting point. But presuppositions do matter and they matter greatly.
As I am slowly going through two books on how to build a good hermeneutical method, I think I have a decent understanding of how the process should work. Your question(s) seems to be the orienting questions one begins with at the start of beginning the hermeneutical process (or the process of Biblical interpretation).
I think that one begins with the realization that people in the past do not think in the same ways as we do now. One book describes this gulf as a river one needs to cross in order to get back at the intended meaning of a text. I need to realize that these other people that wrote this text and those for whom the text was written were from vastly different backgrounds as I. So, before I can set about understanding what they were saying, I need to gain an understanding of how they viewed the world. Once I do that, I can apply the text to their world and in doing so, obtain the message of the writer within the context of the intended readers.
Once I do that, then I can start to move the message over from their side of the river and apply it to my life.
But I think that things such as the synoptic problem, the composition of John by a community, the authorship of the Pauline corpus, etc can still arise from an honest interpretation of the text.
If I am really trying to get at a) the truth of God’s message to us and b) learn about the Bible for its own sake, then I need to be open to these sorts of questions. I need to hold my view of the Bible in flux if I am to honestly address these questions. This need arises from an honest approach to the formation of the scriptures and a realization that I am learning from people that are not like me at all.
Because of the need to have a malleable view of the Bible when approaching an honest study, I need to grant grace to people that are doing the same. ((And I when I say “honest study,” I am talking about approaching the study not caring about what the answers are, as long as they are the correct ones. I have to leave my presuppositions at the door.)) If one needs to alter their biliology because of their studies, then I submit that it should be altered. Even if it goes agaisnt the interpretations of the people that come before them. ((This might be some of my restorationist - Campbell/Stone in me, but I think the idea still holds))
All of this is a complex process. One that takes a long time if one approaches it in a systematic fashion.
At the most basic level the Bible is a collection of religious texts that Jews (parts of the Hebrew Bible) and Christians (HB and NT) came to believe was the revelation of God to humankind. I buy into that idea too. I begin with saying, “This is the word of God.” I try to go from there as carefully as I can.
So again, if a person rejects this, they cannot interpret the Bible as fully as a believer can, IMHO. I submit that they can only do phase I, which is locating the text in its original culture in an effort to find its original meaning.
Lastly, as I ramble with a great need for food, I want to reiterate that even people that accept that the Bible is the word of God come to some of the same issues that people that reject the Bible as the word of God come to. This does not mean that the one is invalidated by the other.
I feel so depressed. I write a post and only get 3 responses while others get 60!
Anyways, let me begin by quoting this, “All a man’s ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord.” Proverbs 16:2
I found something interesting while readings Honzo’s post. He mentioned the H-word–Honesty. A higher critic or ultra conservative preacher both desire honesty. The liberal (whatever name you want to call him) stands up shouting the exact same thing that the conservative man is saying about the liberal. “We” want to be as honest towards scripture as we can. That is our goal.
But.
Our presuppositions can hinder that. Our ways seem innocent…but God knows our hearts.
I guess I am trying to make an appeal to everyone to always begin your (my) studies by examining our hearts.
I think starting points do matter. And we should start with our hearts.
In some ways i think I am asking the reverse to the question, Do the ends justify the means? Our beginning steps are foundational to our end results. We cannot know where our ends will be until we get there. That makes our starting points so much more important. We could be going down a slippery slope without realizing it. Our means do not justify our ends.
Darryl, I was not really trying to debate if we should have scholars or not. or if we should have men who study by using higher criticism. I was trying to examine our attempts to study. Our starting point. But thanks for you thoughts.
Casey,
Is your presupposition that if we're all honest about our starting points, we'll all end up with the same conclusions? Or is it possible that a liberal can be honestly liberal, while a conservative be also honestly conservative, and both have a clean conscience before and be approved by God?
Of course each of us will miss the point from time to time, either because of our pride, or a lack of knowledge or a blindness to our cultural biases or any host of other reasons. Perhaps what we need is not so much a better hermeneutic of individual interpretation, but rather a clear hermeneutic of collective, communal interpretation that allows for a multiplicity of voices and values all opinions (even those who dissent with the majority voice). Community is the answer to the individual crisis you've called out.
Jr
I wasn’t really trying to advocate anything with this post, I was just trying to ask some questions.
“Or is it possible that a liberal can be honestly liberal, while a conservative be also honestly conservative, and both have a clean conscience before and approved by God.”
Clearly that is a wrong statement. (unless one says all believes are the same–all roads take you to heaven)
If indeed, an author of Scripture wrote something down–then he meant something by it. Either one thought is correct or the other (on most doctrines–obviously some beliefs are not 100% foolproof). So it doesn’t matter if one feels consciously ok with their belief system now, in the future we will have complete truth.
I do like you thoughts on communal learning. Perhaps, this is more evidence to look at our forefathers too. But is there ever a danger in this approach? Can some “wolves in sheep’s clothing” speak to us when we allow all to speak? I am not trying to push any “correct thinking” upon us…friend here me, I am just wanting to ask these questions (sorry if I sounded anti-liberal, I am not).
(I would prefer to not give examples because someone might try to argue those examples and lose the point of this post–I am only trying to ask questions of our starting points–something I believe all of us should do)
I will enjoy your comments. I need to go, I have a meeting in two minutes.
First, of course there are dangers in community learning - the wolves-in-sheeps'-clothing are a great example. I think this is why we are warned to test the spirits… and above all trust the Holy Spirit to illumine our insights.
As for your statements before that, I would disagree. I think you've created a false dichotomy between "only one right interpretation" and "believe any way you like/all roads lead to heaven". The Rabbis believed that Moses brought with him down from Sinai not only the written Law, but also all possible interpretations of that Law. They saw in the Scriptures a multitude of meanings, and rather than categorize them as 'true' or 'false', they asked "which of these readings helps us to be God's people, and which among them do not?"
If God inspired his Scriptures, then can we not imagine that they have much more meaning than any single author could have intended? Indeed, is this not how they remain relevant for so many centuries? And let us also remember that rarely - if ever - does the Bible outline a doctrine. Most often doctrines are belief structures we've pieced together from various passages here and there. They are certainly useful, but as you say not foolproof. I think a great many conflicts would be avoided if we started with humility before doctrine.
All that to say, I think that sincere believers and their believing communities can be growing in the Spirit and have very different views on a lot of issue. In my reading of the Scriptures (with all the biases that entails), I see only the person of Jesus to be a divisive issue. If we don't confess the same Christ (and even this is a multifaceted argument) , we can't worship together because we are worshiping different gods. Fundamentalists must learn to worship along side liberal Episcopals. 'Cause we're all going to be in heaven one day, and if anything about Jesus' teachings on the Kingdom is consistent, it's that we'll be pretty surprised at who makes it in.
Friend, I enjoy your comments but I do not think that they hold much weight for me (unless you help me to see your points more clearly).
Why even reference Rabbis? NT clearly makes it seem that they missed understood and missed the whole meaning of scripture (how it is to be used). So what if they believed in something? They also believed that Jesus was not the messiah. Rabbis existed way after the Torah came into existence (Moses around 1500bc while Rabbis came around 4th to 1st century, depending on how gracious you want to be). So for way over a millennia Israelites did not think like Rabbis. Isn’t it possible, (and I would add probable) that they were wrong.
Help me to see why I would want to follow what you have said.
Also, you are correct in saying that the authors of the bible might not have fully known what their work was going to be for us today. They might not have understood all to which they wrote. I don’t think anyone can proof this, but it is reasonable to belief that Jeremiah’s prophecies were not clearly understood by himself (thats cool). But I can’t believe anyone would think that God delivered his message with many truths. When have you ever written a note, or spoke, or communicated and you meant two different things at the same time? When one person speaks, writes, or communicates…they have a point, a purpose. Why would I change this thought just because God says something? I think it is clear that he has a specific purpose in his words. (I would agree that any scripture can have a multitude of applications for us today, but only one principle theme, meaning, or truth)
I don’t think that the relevance of scripture is because it changes with the wind. In fact, I think the relevance scripture is because of its great truths that apply in all situations. Any time society changes we must have a new outlook of scripture? Won’t that make us (society) in control of scripture? Many people believe this assumption (I don’t know if I do or not–maybe you do, if so, help me to understand).
I had to reread your last paragraph a couple of times to understand exactly what you were saying, but I think I figured it out. I think you are trying to say that out of all the doctrines/beliefs that one might have, you hold higher than others the issue of Christology, only a sharp disagreement with this would severe ties to others. (correct?) If that is what you meant, then friend you are stupid and dumb…just kidding. Did I scare you? Anyways, I would agree and amen that. I have grown in my studies to this point (or close too–I might want to add God the Father, and HS too).
Friend, you are obviously smart. And you are probably smart enough to realize (by my typing) that I am not and I am young. I just want to learn; to love God with my mind. I am only a student. Help me to understand you better if I am wrong.
I think I might try using a super cool nickname like Hank and Honzo. Maybe from now on I will be Batman or Pringles Boy, or Vader. Any suggestions? And yes, I am mocking Hank and Honzo.
First of all, I think that there are two criteria that must be the goals we are running towards, and the standard by which we measure all biblical interpretation:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus said that all of the law and the prophets are summed up in those two statements and they serve as a test for the soundness of our interpretation and understanding.
Jesus was a rabbi. Jesus was Jewish. This is an important reality because (though we who are not Jewish can understand and interpret the Bible) Jesus taught and learned and grew in the Jewish context. For example: in the Jewish tradition words are treated a little differently. The Bible is full of word plays that we don’t see because we don’t speak hebrew or get the jokes (but that doesn’t mean that we can’t know and understand a text). It has to do with multiple angles - and multiple layers. The Bible is a place where “babes wade and elephants scuba.” It is both, and.
Humans have different struggles, different needs, different perspectives. The Bible is so multi-facetted that it is able to speak to people who need to hear opposite things. So, my brother can read a story and what stands out to him is the way God chastened his people. I can read the same story and be struck by the way God is forgiving, loving, and compassionate. Is one of us right and the other wrong? NO! What is happening is that the same story reveals truth that speaks to us each differently.
Five people view a car crash. All have different stories. Who is correct? Well… none of them have the complete truth - none of them saw the entire picture. They each have a piece.
God is both Truth and Grace. Finding the balance between these two is nearly impossible. We tend to err on one side or the other. We need both truth and grace. They must both be sought out. Truth maintains integrity while grace allows us to approach God. Those who err on the side of truth can become ungraceous, unloving, and proud. Those who err on the side of grace can develop flaky theology, loose their integrity, and walk away from godliness.
God is huge. His word speaks to different humans in different ways because our perspective and experience and needs vary. He can even use the same passage to do, seemingly contradictory things in the same individual. When I am erring on the side of truth (though truth and grace are not the only areas that this happens), God may hit me over the head with some grace. Then I may begin erring on the side of grace and he will hit me with some truth.
“Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven…” I think that this needs to be one of the starting points, and that we have to constantly ask ourselves, “Am I loving God above all, and am I loving my neighbor.” If the answer to either question is, “No.” then you are seeking a second thing first, and you risk making an idol out of your interpretation.
Not all roads lead to God, but we will each see different things on the road to God. You may notice the trees while I see the sky.
Jesse, I enjoyed you thoughts. Let me add some stuff to them.
1. Literary context is huge. I have studied Hebrew and Greek so I know exactly what you are talking about. There is a huge demand on us to try to understand the literary context of each passage of scripture.
2. I want to give my thoughts on meaning/applications. It is true that I can read a text and get something out of it that is different from someone else. Or to read a text and get something out of it that is different from what I got from it last time I read it. But this is not the meaning of the text. This is all application. We can have a multitude of applications. But the communicator’s truth is not something that changes. God’s revealed message is not something that changes, even so the application can change for us. Example…Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath. I might find it wonderful that God heals people and choose to try to show more compassion to others. You might get out of the text the importance of what the true sabbath is. These are applications I get from the text, not the true meaning. The true meaning is what the author intended to say, while the application is what I get from the text. Some of our application might (and probably should always be) based on some of God’s meaning.
Just to let everyone know, my weekends are my busy time, so if I don’t post; think nothing of it and I will try to get back asap.
I think that you cannot limit what the author intended to say to one thing. I think God is too big, too knowing, his word is too inspired for the authors to have known the extent of what they were saying. As a writer and a preacher, I am aware of many times when I have written something or spoken and did not know the layers of truth that I was speaking. Sometimes I can reread something that I have written and discover new and profound truths.
Even prophets often were speaking to their own day, but they were also speaking beyond that. There are verses that foreshadow Christ in ways that the authors could not have known. They were communicating far more truth than they intended. I think that the multifacetedness of scripture goes beyond application and hits on the intent of the text.
Jesse:
Do you think these things are true do you know these things to be true? And if you do know them instead of thinking you know them, on what grounds do you know that the multi-facet approach is the proper approach to interpreting Scriptures?
I am asking these questions sincerely…
There should be an ‘or’ between ‘do you think these things are true OR do you know these things to be true.’ sorry…
You know what would be great? If all the authors made a post giving their set of starting points. We could make a great post series on the topic. “I come from this tradition and these are the starting points that we begin with as we approach scripture and the world….”